Hate speech and #FakeNews: the crackdown continues

A year after the European Commission created an online “code of conduct” for the world’s four biggest Internet companies, online racist and xenophobic sentiment shows no sign of slowing down. Or at least that’s what the European body found a year after its adoption. Twitter in particular has failed to meet EC standards for removing hate speech online within 24 hours, taking action in less than 40 percent of incidences in which content has been flagged. In contrast, Google and Facebook have succeeded in taking down at least 50 percent of flagged content. Making matters worse, the onslaught of online hate speech has paired itself with the rise of the far right and of “fake news”, more often than not used to accompany hateful content on social media - writes Colin Stevens

The rise of far right voices, both online and offline, throughout western politics is at least partly to blame for the dismal state of online debates. The election of President Trump coincided with a rise in incidents of racist or anti-Semitic vandalism and violence in the US, with many drawing links between these acts and Trump’s all too familiar Twitter rhetoric. In the same strain, the triggering of Brexit’s Article 50 in the UK prompted a spike in hate speech online, with police forces across the country ramping up intelligence gathering and increasing protection for vulnerable communities in anticipation of real-life attacks. One broadcaster in the UK was removed from her post at a radio station following her online call for a “final solution” following the Manchester Arena terrorist attack; announcement of her removal was met with both applause as well as remorse for the perceived blow to freedom of speech.

Amid the controversy, hate speech represents just half of the story: the prevalence of so-called “fake news” sits on the other side of the coin that currently poisons the well of online debate. The small Macedonian town of Veles shot to Internet stardom when news outlets got wind of the fact it was home to more than 100 pro-Trump websites, many of them posting fake news stories – such as articles ostensibly proving that Barack Obama was born in Kenya or that Hillary Clinton wanted Trump to run because he is “honest and can’t be bought”. The fake news trend made its way to the White House, with Trump himself slamming a range of critical media stories as “fake news”; amid reports of internal strife within the Trump administration and speculation of unsavory ties between the Trump family and Russian power brokers, Trump has repeatedly taken to Twitter to declare “fake news” the “enemy”, making online debate impossible and discrediting critics in one fell swoop.

Even major media corporations have not been able to duck controversy. In April 2017, a story of an incident between a Russian warplane and a US Navy destroyer surfaced on a Russian satirical website, and spread quickly via Facebook. Within a few weeks, news organizations and websites around the world picked up the story, with UK outlets The Sun and The Daily Star running sensational headlines to spread news of the reported incident until it was ultimately picked up by FoxNews.com. The incident, though based on a similar event in 2014, had never occurred.

The Washington Post was caught in the headlights in late 2016, after it circulated a story about US “fake news” outlets promoting a Russian agenda during the presidential election- a story lauded as an earth-shattering expose by some, and shoddy journalism by others. Months later, the same outlet ran a story about Russian hackers infiltrating a US electricity grid that spread rapidly through global media outlets, before The Post was forced to issue a retraction within two hours of the original post.

Accusations of “fake news” have reached as far as the courtroom, with Russian aluminium magnate Oleg Deripaska suing The Associated Press for libel. The storied news agency is accused of defaming him by running a story in March that alleges that in 2005, Paul Manafort pitched to Oleg Deripaska a business proposal that promised to promote the interests of the “Putin government” and undermine anti-Russian opposition in Europe and former Soviet republics. The news agency offered no proof of the actual work, leading Deripaska to publish a series of open letters in the pages of the Wall Street Journal, denouncing AP’s coverage. The legal battle is currently unfolding in the U.S. The news agency recently asked the court for more time to respond to the suit, raising questions about whether it’s claims are as watertight as claimed in the March piece.

Years after the first "fake news” story emerged, the phenomenon shows no signs of slowing down. Though Google and Facebook continue to expand measures to combat its proliferation, such as the introduction of “fact check” tags on search results and emphasizing the need for discernment online, there is no easy fix. Further, as European governments move to pass legislation fining technology companies for inaction, China appears set on using the umbrella of “fake news” to rewrite the story of Tiananmen square. And herein lies the crux of the debate: freedom of expression online must surely be recognized as a hallmark of democratic politics. However, with falsities overshadowing more and more the truth – sometimes with dramatic consequences - that freedom of expression should not be taken for granted anymore.

Share this article: